The Internet has contributed decisively to the redefinition of both the private and public space, to structure the relationships between people and between people and institutions. It has cancelled borders and built new means of production and the use of knowledge. It has expanded the possibilities for direct intervention in the public sphere by individuals. It has modified the organization of work. It has allowed the development of a more open and free society. The Internet should be considered as a global resource and one that meets the criterion of universality.

The European Union is today the region of the world with the highest constitutional protection for personal data, explicitly recognized by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is the point of reference for specifying principles concerning the operation of the Internet, even in a global context.

This Statement of Rights on the Internet is based upon the full recognition of freedom, equality, dignity and diversity of each person. The guarantee of these rights is a necessary condition for ensuring the democratic functioning of institutions, and in order to avoid the dominance of public and private powers that could lead to a society of surveillance, control and social selection.

The Internet is configured as an increasingly-important space for the self-organization of individuals and groups, and as a vital tool for promoting individual and collective participation in democratic processes and meaningful equality.

The principles regarding the Internet also take account of its structure as an economic space that makes possible innovation, fair competition and growth in a democratic context.

A Declaration of Rights for the Internet is an essential tool to provide a constitutional foundation for principles and rights at a supranational level.

There then follow 14 digital rights, including things like basic human rights; right to access the Net; Net neutrality; control of personal data online; protection against surveillance without the approval of a judge; right to online anonymity; and the right to be forgotten.

The present document is just a draft, and input will be gathered from many quarters, including the public, who can make comments and suggestions using an online system. That's only in Italian, for understandable reasons, but it would be good if translations into other major languages were made to allow an even wider consultation [Update: English and French drafts of just the text are available.] After all, a bill of rights for the Internet is something that concerns everyone, not just citizens of enlightened nations like Brazil and Italy.

from the now-that's-impressive-journalism dept

Update: The original article I had seen, on the ABC Australia site has now been "updated" with a correction. It turns out that it was actually just carelessly running a piece from the AFP wire. The AFP piece (sometimes edited, sometimes not) can be seen on MSN.com, Yahoo and the AFP directly. However, I think that first sentence below was a bad summary by the ABC site of the bad reporting by AFP, since none of the others include that initial, totally incorrect, sentence.

Former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, wanted by US authorities and currently living in Russia, has told a Brazilian TV network he has applied for asylum in Brazil and is in possession of more sensitive documents.

"I would love to live in Brazil," Snowden told Globo TV on Sunday (local time).

[....] He said he had more documents to release, relating to US spying on countries that include Britain and Brazil.

That struck me as strange, given earlier statements, including from Snowden himself, that he no longer has any access to any of the documents. As for the application for asylum, last year, Snowden had sent an open letter to Brazil, in which he doesn't actually ask for asylum, but hints that he'd be interested if there were a way to work out the details.

Thankfully, the full Globo TV episode is available online and was conducted in English. And what you quickly discover is whoever wrote that ABC story, is plainly misrepresenting what was said (thanks to Blair Chintella for pointing out exactly where). Early in the interview, Snowden clearly says that he destroyed all the documents. Later in the interview (around minute 40) he's even more direct in contradicting the ABC report:

Sonia Bridi (Globo TV): Every now and then, the American press says that you would offer Brazil documents in exchange for asylum. Is that an offer that's on the table?

Snowden: Absolutely not! I could not be more clear. First off, I don't have any documents to offer. Secondly, even if I did, I would never trade secret information or cooperate with some government in exchange for asylum. Asylum has to be granted on humanitarian grounds. It has to be granted to protect political rights or the right to safety. This whole topic about negotiating for asylum, I think, is improper. If Brazil wants to offer asylum, if they want to stand for human rights, if they want to protect the rights of whistleblowers, I think that's a good thing, and I would certainly encourage and support it -- whether it's in my case, or the case of anyone. But I would never engage in any sort of "deal" or quid pro quo exchange.

And somehow, that gets turned into: "Snowden... has told a Brazilian TV network he has applied for asylum in Brazil and is in possession of more sensitive documents." Incredible. As the reporter from the TV interview herself tweeted later, the report is simply factually incorrect. It was Greenwald who still said he had more documents. While the difference may seem minor, it's very, very big, since Snowden is the one who could use asylum, and his critics would jump on either bogus claim: that he had lied about earlier destruction of documents or that he'd "trade" documents for asylum, as suggested in the report. But neither of those things are true.

from the costly... dept

We've pointed out a few times now, how the NSA seems unable to do basic cost-benefit analysis on its widespread surveillance. The NSA still seems to think that its surveillance is "costless" (perhaps beyond the $70 billion or so from taxpayers). However, as we've pointed out time and time again, distrust in US businesses thanks to the NSA's overreaching surveillance creates a very real cost for the economy.

And it seems to be growing day by day. Brazil, which has been one of the more vocal protesters concerning NSA surveillance, has just awarded a $4.5 billion contract for new fighter jets to Saab, rather than Boeing, which many expected to get the deal. And, Brazilian officials are making it clear that the NSA surveillance issue played a major role in throwing the contract from the Americans to the Swedes.

Until earlier this year, Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet had been considered the front runner. But revelations of spying by the U.S. National Security Agency in Brazil, including personal communication by Rousseff, led Brazil to believe it could not trust a U.S. company.

"The NSA problem ruined it for the Americans," a Brazilian government source said on condition of anonymity.

So, as someone asks in the article, did the NSA's spying on Brazil provide over $4 billion in benefits to the US? That seems unlikely. Maybe now, someone, somewhere within the US government will finally start to do a cost-benefit analysis on the NSA's surveillance that actually takes into account how people will react when it is inevitably revealed how far the spying goes.

from the smokescreens dept

The battle for countries wishing to take control over internet governance (either to increase control and censorship or to "reward" local state-owned telcos) didn't end with the whole WCIT debacle a year and a half ago. It's an ongoing process. This week is NETmundial, or the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Governance, and the usual countries are making the usual noise about changing how internet governance works. There will be lots of talk about how meaningful these discussions will be, or if they'll just be a "farce" to enable authoritarian governments more control. Either way, there are some important proposals and discussions happening at the event.

In a major diplomatic initiative, India is all set to challenge the U.S.’ hegemony of the World Wide Web at a global meet on Internet governance in Sao Paulo (Brazil) next week. India has decided to propose renaming of Internet as ‘Equinet’ so that all nations can have equal say in its operations, besides calling for “internationalisation” of core Internet resources.

Of course, the naming bit is the smokescreen attention-grabber for the other point. Setting up so that "all nations" (note: not all people) can have a say in the operations of the internet is a specific attack on the so-called "multistakeholder" model that is currently in place, in which it's not government entities making these decisions, but a broad group of folks from different backgrounds and specialties (including, many technical experts). Hand the internet over to "governments" and you have a recipe for disaster. If you want more evidence of how troubling this is, look at who India is "aligning itself" with in this proposal:

India is likely to side with Brazil, Russia, China, South Africa and Iran to make its point.

Brazil, which organized this event, has been pushing for stronger internet freedoms lately, but also has a history of going in the other direction. Russia, China and Iran, of course, are very much focused on greater control and censorship of the internet, not greater freedom.

There are lots of important things worth discussing concerning internet governance, but renaming the internet as a challenge to US control (which isn't actually US control) is pretty silly. What's much more concerning is the underlying attempt to give some authoritarian countries with long histories of censorship more direct control over the internet. Equinet sounds ridiculous, but Censornet may be more accurate.

from the leading-the-world dept

We first wrote about Brazil's 'Marco Civil' back in October 2011, when we described it as a kind of "anti-ACTA". That's because it was designed to protect online rights, not diminish them, and was the product of a democratic and transparent process, not of secret corporate lobbying. As Global Voices explains:

the bill was developed through a uniquely open public process. Over the course of several months in 2009 and 2010, citizens were invited to contribute suggestions and criticism to an early draft of the bill using an open online platform. Nearly 2,000 people participated in the process -- the bill was substantially revised and re-shaped to reflect public concern. As one popular meme (below) put it, the Marco Civil "does not belong to a [political] party. It belongs to Brazilians."

Precisely because it was not yet another corporate wishlist, but sought to enshrine fundamental user rights, it was fiercely attacked by an array of industries. In November 2012, it looked like Marco Civil had been killed off by the lobbyists, but in 2013 it showed signs of life again. Now comes the good news that it has finally passed a key vote in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies; significantly, digital activism once more played a crucial role:

#EuQueroMarcoCivil – "I want Marco Civil." It was with this hashtag that Brazilians and supporters around the world pushed mightily yesterday for the passage of the Marco Civil da Internet, the unprecedented "Constitution" or "Bill of Rights for the Internet" that has been brought to Brazil's Chamber of Deputies nine times since 2012. Late in evening, the Chamber approved the one-of-kind bill that ensures fundamental rights of free expression and privacy online.

Throughout the day, Twitter users touted the bill's many safeguards for fundamental user rights to free expression, privacy, and access to information using the #MarcoCivil and #EuQueroMarcoCivil hashtags. In Brasilia, the nation's capital, supporters voiced their support using signs, t-shirts, and other creative methods.

Considering how terrible some of the proposed amendments to Marco Civil were, the approved text is largely positive. It is definitely not the ideal version of law. But it is a much better one than expected, and probably the best possible outcome given the existing political limitations.

Here's infojustice.org's summary of the Marco Civil's main features:

Data retention

Brazil was dangerously close to establishing a period of 5 years of mandatory data retention before discussions on Marco Civil began. Unfortunately, the bill still has provisions to that effect, but the period is much shorter for ISPs providing connectivity services (1 year).

...

Net neutrality
Brazil has taken a major step forward in preserving net neutrality, following the example set by countries such as Chile and the Netherlands. Marco Civil establishes the general principle that net neutrality should be guaranteed, and further regulated by a presidential decree, with inputs from both the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and ANATEL, the national telecommunications agency.

Intermediary liability
One of the main provisions of Marco Civil deals with the difficult subject of intermediary liability due to content uploaded by third parties. The system in Marco Civil establishes that intermediaries can only be held liable if they do not comply with a court order explicitly demanding content to be removed. This regime, however, is not applicable to copyright infringement, which will be dealt with by the forthcoming copyright reform bill.

Privacy
After the Snowden leaks, a small number of privacy provisions were included in Marco Civil (the main privacy and data protection bill under development has yet to be sent to Congress). The main proposal was extremely controversial: forcing Internet companies to host data pertaining to Brazilian nations within Brazilian territory. Broadly rejected by civil society, engineers, companies, and several legislators, the proposal was dropped by the government so that voting could take place.

Rights and principles
Marco Civil establishes a strong, forward-looking assertion of rights and principles for Internet regulation in Brazil: freedom of expression, interoperability, the use of open standards and technology, protection of personal data, accessibility, multistakeholder governance, open government data.

Although it must still go to Brazil's Federal Senate for consideration, before returning to the Chamber of Deputies and then being sent to the Brazilian President for her signature, the bill is essentially passed. As the above summary makes clear, the Marco Civil is an extremely wide-ranging law, and arguably the best of its kind anywhere in the world -- an extraordinary achievement given its unusual origins and the lobbying firepower ranged against it. Global Voices comments:

In a moment when censorship, surveillance, corporate greed and government corruption seem to dominate the world of digital rights, a victory like this one can bring hope to those working to improve user protections worldwide.

The people who made this happen are to be congratulated on the victory, gained thanks to their unstinting hard work over the last few years. If only more of us could look forward to the protections the Marco Civil will provide.

from the undersea-blowback dept

Long before there was Edward Snowden (or even an NSA), there have, unsurprisingly, been government intelligence operatives gifted at tapping communications networks, be they via satellite dish or undersea cables. In fact, before Snowden, back when most people (including most of the press) treated total surveillance as the incoherent ramblings of paranoids, there was Echelon. The highly-confidential program, jointly operated by the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada and New Zealand, truly took off in the 1960s, and focused on using any means necessary to gather communications intelligence. The program started with a focus on intercepting satellite lines, then shifted to undersea cable taps, microwave transmission intercepts, and other options.

"At a summit in Brussels, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff said the $185 million cable project was central to "guarantee the neutrality" of the Internet, signaling her desire to shield Brazil's Internet traffic from U.S. surveillance. "We have to respect privacy, human rights and the sovereignty of nations. We don't want businesses to be spied upon," Rousseff told a joint news conference with the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council. "The Internet is one of the best things man has ever invented. So we agreed for the need to guarantee ... the neutrality of the network, a democratic area where we can protect freedom of expression," Rousseff said."

To pretend the NSA lacks the ability to simply tap this new cable run, nab that same data at any of a million interconnection points, or just get it handed to them by other intelligence agencies is perhaps either naive, a bit of political salesmanship for the project, or both. Still, it's another instance of how the NSA revelations have significantly tarnished international/U.S. relations, resulting in a large number of countries making it a point of pride to avoid using U.S. technology. That's not going to be particularly great for U.S. industry, and we're likely only just seeing the tip of the iceberg.

from the nice-work,-journalists dept

This morning, a Brazilian publication, A Folha, released a very interesting open letter from Ed Snowden. It's worth reading in full, and we'll include the full thing beneath this post, but first, a few snippets. His summary of the overall situation is key:

Today, if you carry a cell phone in Sao Paolo, the NSA can and does keep track of your location: they do this 5 billion times a day to people around the world. When someone in Florianopolis visits a website, the NSA keeps a record of when it happened and what you did there. If a mother in Porto Alegre calls her son to wish him luck on his university exam, NSA can keep that call log for five years or more. They even keep track of who is having an affair or looking at pornography, in case they need to damage their target's reputation.

American Senators tell us that Brazil should not worry, because this is not "surveillance," it's "data collection." They say it is done to keep you safe. They’re wrong. There is a huge difference between legal programs, legitimate spying, legitimate law enforcement — where individuals are targeted based on a reasonable, individualized suspicion — and these programs of dragnet mass surveillance that put entire populations under an all-seeing eye and save copies forever. These programs were never about terrorism: they're about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They're about power.

He then notes that some Brazilian politicians have asked for his assistance into researching what the US has done, and he said that he is willing to help "wherever appropriate and lawful" while also noting that the US pulling his passport and showing its willingness to force planes to land when it suspects Snowden may be on board may limit his effectiveness in helping with the investigation. There's a lot more in the letter as well, but the press seems to be summarizing it as "Snowden offers to swap helping investigating spying for asylum." A few examples:

All of these seem to think there's some sort of conditional there. Reading the actual letter, that doesn't seem to be the case at all. While he does mention that without being granted political asylum, the US government "will continue to interfere with my ability to speak," there does not appear to be any quid pro quo setup, in which he's asking for asylum. He's just laying out the situation. Furthermore, he later notes the value of being able to speak freely, and how that's more important than where he lives:

My act of conscience began with a statement: "I don't want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded. That's not something I'm willing to support, it's not something I'm willing to build, and it's not something I'm willing to live under."

Days later, I was told my government had made me stateless and wanted to imprison me. The price for my speech was my passport, but I would pay it again: I will not be the one to ignore criminality for the sake of political comfort. I would rather be without a state than without a voice.

Of course, the absolute worst of the worst in reporting on this was... CNN. They posted a tweet, claiming that Snowden offered to "spy on the US." Seriously.

Thankfully, after lots of people reacted angrily to that, CNN chose to delete the tweet. And people wonder why the media business is struggling these days.

from the of-course-they-are dept

The UN has apparently been considering a proposal pushed by Brazil and Germany, to clarify that basic offline rights to privacy should apply to online information and activities as well. The proposal is targeted at attempts by governments -- mainly the US -- to ignore privacy issues in spying on people around the globe. Not surprisingly, the US is (quietly) working hard to stop this plan. Colum Lynch at Foreign Policy has the scoop, noting that publicly, the US is pretending to support this in some form:

But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights. The United States and its allies, according to diplomats, outside observers, and documents, contend that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not apply to foreign espionage.

In recent days, the United States circulated to its allies a confidential paper highlighting American objectives in the negotiations, "Right to Privacy in the Digital Age -- U.S. Redlines." It calls for changing the Brazilian and German text so "that references to privacy rights are referring explicitly to States' obligations under ICCPR and remove suggestion that such obligations apply extraterritorially." In other words: America wants to make sure it preserves the right to spy overseas.

The U.S. paper also calls on governments to promote amendments that would weaken Brazil's and Germany's contention that some "highly intrusive" acts of online espionage may constitute a violation of freedom of expression. Instead, the United States wants to limit the focus to illegal surveillance -- which the American government claims it never, ever does. Collecting information on tens of millions of people around the world is perfectly acceptable, the Obama administration has repeatedly said. It's authorized by U.S. statute, overseen by Congress, and approved by American courts.

While none of this creates any binding requirements, it does put tremendous pressure on countries to comply -- and could lead to more specific language in various treaties and other agreements as well. It also allows other countries to stand firmly on the moral high ground that the US pretends to stand on, in order to scold the US for its activities.

The US, of course, likes to pretend that it needs to violate everyone's privacy to catch a few bad guys. There is little reason to suggest this is true. Nothing in the proposal appears to stop legitimate law enforcement, espionage and surveillance efforts, targeted at actual people involved in criminal or terrorist activity. The issue is scooping up everyone's data "just because." That's not what US negotiators are saying, obviously. Instead, they argue they need to scoop up everyone's data to make the world safer by going after "international terrorists."

The US's stance here is fairly obvious. It wants to pretend to retain the moral high ground on this issue, and the way to do that is to try to stop the rest of the world from pointing out that it's been on the low road for quite some time. But trying to redraw the map doesn't change the reality.

from the simple-questions dept

We just had a story about how Australia used its equivalent of the NSA to do economic espionage for the sake of improving trade deals and helping private companies by passing along useful info they gleaned from spying on the Japanese. It had become so common that companies getting the info would joke that it had "fallen off the back of a truck." Of course, many have argued that the US is obviously engaged in similar activity. The most damning evidence, of course, was the release a few months ago of details of how the NSA spied on Petrobas, the Brazilian oil giant.

The US has sworn up, down, left and right that it does not use the NSA for economic espionage. In August, the Department of Defense issued a statement to the Washington Post saying:

“The Department of Defense does engage” in computer network exploitation, according to an e-mailed statement from an NSA spokesman, whose agency is part of the Defense Department. “The department does ***not*** engage in economic espionage in any domain, including cyber.”

Those triple stars were in the original. That was before the Petrobas revelation. After that came out, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper tried to explain that away, arguing that it was not for economic espionage at all, but to get a better sense of whether there was an upcoming financial crisis.

What we do not do, as we have said many times, is use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of - or give intelligence we collect to - US companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line.

Of course, it's a very blurry line between using that information to create policies that help US companies and just giving the information to them directly. Perhaps it's true that the NSA doesn't hand out the information it gleans from foreign companies directly to US companies to help them understand, say, how a foreign product is built -- but reverse engineering is pretty good these days, so it's doubtful that too many US companies need that kind of help anyway. Instead, it seems to be just as nefarious, and certainly a form of economic espionage, to use this information to create trade policies that clearly boost certain US interests.

But that's certainly happening. The NY Times' giant profile of the NSA's activities that came out earlier this month included a list of "customers" for the NSA. Pay close attention to the last two on the list:

This huge investment in collection is driven by pressure from the agency’s “customers,” in government jargon, not only at the White House, Pentagon, F.B.I. and C.I.A., but also spread across the Departments of State and Energy, Homeland Security and Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative.

Now, one can make a (potentially compelling) argument that of course it's US policy to try to improve situations for American companies. And that's perfectly reasonable -- but it seems like a clearly bogus argument for the NSA to say it "does not do economic espionage" just because it (allegedly) does not do one particular tidbit of economic espionage: directly handing companies information. If, instead, it's spying on foreign companies and then providing that information to the USTR, you can assure that two things are happening: economic policies that help the special interests that have a close relationship with the USTR are getting extra favorable policies in their place, and some of that information is seeping out of the USTR to those companies anyway.

And we've already seen, repeatedly, how the USTR appears to have very cozy relations with certain legacy industries, while having almost no relationship at all with younger, more innovative industries. As such, not only is the NSA clearly engaged in economic espionage, it's doing so to the detriment of actual innovation and economic growth, by using this information to prop up legacy industries, while handicapping the innovative industries.

the Directors of all the major Internet organizations -- ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the World Wide Web Consortium, the Internet Society, all five of the regional Internet address registries -- turned their back on the US government. With striking unanimity, the organizations that actually develop and administer Internet standards and resources initiated a break with 3 decades of U.S. dominance of Internet governance.

Brazil, which has slammed massive US electronic spying on its territory, said on Wednesday it would host a global summit on internet governance in April.

President Dilma Rousseff made the announcement after conferring in Brasilia with Fadi Chehade, chief executive of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann).

"We have decided that Brazil will host in April 2014 an international summit of governments, industry, civil society and academia" to discuss Brazil's suggestions for upgrading Internet security, Rousseff said on Twitter.

Once again, we see the NSA's reckless disregard for the consequences of its global surveillance -- far beyond what could be regarded as reasonable or proportionate -- is now having massive adverse effects on America's standing and influence in the world. The Internet Governance Project post puts it well:

Make no mistake about it: this is important. It is the latest, and one of the most significant manifestations of the fallout from the Snowden revelations about NSA spying on the global Internet. It's one thing when the government of Brazil, a longtime antagonist regarding the US role in Internet governance, gets indignant and makes threats because of the revelations. And of course, the gloating of representatives of the International Telecommunication Union could be expected. But this is different. Brazil's state is now allied with the spokespersons for all of the organically evolved Internet institutions, the representatives of the very "multi-stakeholder model" the US purports to defend. You know you've made a big mistake, a life-changing mistake, when even your own children abandon you en masse.

And before anyone tries to blame this latest development on Snowden, let's be clear that the problem is not that this activity has been revealed, but that the NSA was doing it in the first place.